SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ker) 888

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J.
XXXX – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(Crl.) No. 445 of 2022
Decided on : 07-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : T.B.MINI, GAURAV AGRAWAL(6631/1999/BIH), C.GEORGE THOMAS(D/1081/2012)
For the Respondent: SRI.T A SHAJI, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, SRI.P.NARAYANAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.SAJJU S SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.), SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE, SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM, SMT.V.T.LITHA, SMT.K.R.MONISHA, SMT.NITYA R.

Unauthorized access to evidence in court custody constitutes a violation of privacy rights, necessitating an inquiry to uphold the dignity and fundamental rights of the victim.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120A, 120B, 109, 342, 366, 354, 354B, 357, 376D, 506(i), 201, 204, 212 and 34 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 66-E and 67-A - Allegations of gang rape and unauthorized access to evidence - The petitioner sought investigation into unauthorized access to a memory card containing explicit videos while in court custody, alleging violations of privacy and fundamental rights. (Paras 1-4, 11-18)

(B) Privacy - Right to privacy is intrinsic to the dignity of individuals and is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Unauthorized access to sensitive materials constitutes a violation of this right. (Paras 39-41)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a victim of gang rape, alleged unauthorized access to video evidence stored on a memory card while it was in court custody, leading to concerns over privacy violations. (Paras 1-4)

Findings of Court:
The court directed a fact-finding inquiry into the unauthorized access and handling of the memory card, emphasizing the need to protect the victim's rights and privacy. (Paras 57-61)

Issues: Whether unauthorized access to the memory card while in custody constitutes a violation of the victim's rights and whether further investigation is warranted. (Paras 5-8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unauthorized access to the memory card violated the victim's privacy and fundamental rights, necessitating an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the access. (Paras 57-61)

Result: The court directed a fact-finding inquiry into the unauthorized access of the memory card. (Para 61)

JUDGMENT :

K.BABU, J.

A South Indian film actress, who was subjected to gang rape and sexual harassment, is before the Court complaining that the sexually explicit videos allegedly recorded by the culprits, which were seized and produced before the Court as evidence and kept in the safe custody of the Court, were unauthorisedly accessed, viewed, copied and transmitted. She apprehends that the contents of the video may be disseminated at any moment. The distress of the victim is beyond imagination.

2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station. The case was registered based on the First Information Statement given by her on 18.02.2017, alleging that she was subjected to gang rape and sexual harassment. The Police submitted the final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate, which committed the case to the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The case is now pending as Sessions Case No.118/2018 before the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam.

3. The prosecution alleges offences punishable under Sections 120A, 120B, 109, 342, 366, 354, 354B, 357, 376D, 506(i), 201, 204, 212 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66-E and 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

4. The petitioner pleaded the following:

4.1. The petitioner was on her way to Ernakulam from Thrissur on 17.02.2017 in a Mahindra XUV car bearing registration No.KL-39-F-5744. Accused Nos.1 to 6 and respondent No.7 (accused No.8) hatched a criminal conspiracy to abduct the petitioner and commit rape on her. The petitioner was going from her home in Thrissur to Ernakulam to record a promotional song in connection with the movie 'Honey Bee 2'. Accused No.2, Martin Antony, was entrusted with picking up the petitioner from her house. Accused No.1 Sunil, made all arrangements to execute the crime as planned.

4.2. Accused No.2 moved to Ernakulam with the petitioner at about 7.45 p.m. He informed accused No.1 of the time-to-time locations throughout the journey. As planned, accused Nos.1, 3, and 4 were waiting in front of the Adlux Convention Centre, Angamaly, in a tempo traveller bearing registration No.KL-60-A-9338 awaiting the arrival of the vehicle carrying the petitioner.

4.3. When the vehicle carrying the petitioner reached in front of the Adlux Convention Centre, accused Nos.1, 3, and 4 followed the vehicle. When both the vehicles arrived at Kottai near Athani junction, accused No.1 intentionally hit his vehicle slightly behind the vehicle by which the petitioner was travelling with intent to create a fake accident scene as designed. This happened at 9.15 p.m. The intention of the accused was to stop the vehicle by which the petitioner was travelling. Accused No.2 stopped the vehicle, got down from the driver's seat, and made accused Nos.3 and 4 enter the car without her consent. They caught hold of her mouth and hand, overpowered her, and forcefully took away her mobile phone. Thereafter, accused No.2 entered the car, closed all the windows, centre locked the vehicle doors, wrongfully confined her in the car, and continued their journey towards Ernakulam.

4.4. Accused No.1 followed the car in the tempo traveller. Accused Nos.5 and 6 were waiting at Apollo Junction, Kalamassery.

When both the vehicles reached Apollo Junction, Kalamassery accused No.5 approached the petitioner's vehicle and got inside with the active connivance of accused No.2. After watching the situation in the car, accused No.5 got down from the vehicle and narrated the scene to accused No.1. Then accused No.6 got into the petitioner's vehicle and confined her in the rear seat along with accused No.3 and continued the journey. When they reached Palarivattom, accused No.6 got out of the vehicle, and accused No.5 got inside and sat beside her and confined her in the rear seat along with accused No.3. Accused No.4 also entered the vehicle and sat in the front side

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top